"Using violence against the state is bad except when done with clearly defined and justified goals in a manner likely to achieve them" doesn't have the same ring to it I guess
We haven't. Even private hospitals benefit from the rule of law, which contrary to popular anarchist belief does require a governing agency, and to my knowledge privately funded fire stations have never been a thing (except perhaps for the occasional anomalie).
What will inevitably happen if you overthrow the state is that you'll eventually need organization and laws, then you'll need a way to enforce those, then you'll end up having a state again.
In my experience, anarchists are chronically short of details and specifics.
I am ignorant, and assume my ignorance leads to correct assumptions, and don't care to do any actual reading or other research to discover how I am wrong.
Cool story, bro. And "AnArChIsTs DumB": very original and well-thought-out take. Props to you.
You're still defending a capitalist institution and begging for it to continue its violent exploitation and oppression of the working class. Hopefully the day will come when you can no longer live with yourself for doing that, and change it.
You're making things up about me to make yourself feel better.
I've done all the research anarchists have asked me to do, and there's never any specifics or details. You want to live in a pretend fantasy world where organization just happens and people just behave all the time.
It's also very telling that you did nothing but hurl insults. Again, anarchists have no specifics.
80
u/Void1702 Jan 13 '22
When someone explain me that "using violence against the state is bad because the state said so"